Replies

I'm afraid this isn't entirely the sort of thing I was after.

>1)– the life has no potential to develop unless it is implanted into a uterus.

This is technically incorrect. The second the sperm penetrates the egg, the process of development starts. The egg begins internal processes which will begin to split it very shortly after conception. The egg, rich in oxygen and nutrients, is enough to sustain the newly developed, and developing, embryo long enough for it to reach the womb and get external sources of oxygen and nutrients (from the mom). The potential disappears the second the egg is fertilized, and becomes active development: capability.

I'm afraid you miss the point - you have to go back to my original post 239 to get the idea. You see, I think what you say here is valid. It's just that I see that implantation is a factor I don't hear discussed much - and I want to take this opportunity to get a better idea of the issues that surround this narrow part of the abortion issue. I don't want you to get the idea I don't appreciate your response. I have a feeling that you could see implantation statistically, or in terms of there not being any possibility of life in such a womb – which is a type of indirect, prior action that may be permissible, or you could see it as being a case of ‘failing to provide the necessities of life’. I’m surrounded here at my desk by about six different books on abortion – tying to get my head around the issues.

>2)- Given that there are medical conditions, which prevent any fertilised egg from implanting, if a woman who suffers from such ever has sex, does she risk consigning a potential human to death? How does this fit into the abortion issue?

If the woman knew, for all certainty, that any embryo that would be made would die, I would say she shouldn't be taking the risk, or find someway to not take the risk (if she can't get pregnant, she should have her ovaries removed. She certainly can't use them. Unless a cure was found for her disease).

Yeah - I'd been thinking similar things. I guess the problem here is that I've heard that something like half of all US abortions come after birth control failed in some way, so we are getting into the usual territory of limiting choice - but by asking a woman to loose her ovaries (if a cure does not exist), then we are really going to the very limit of restricting choice - getting into something that may actually deserve to be called a 'pro-choice' issue. We would be taking away her potential to create life, and also to be a woman. Maybe there is some better procedure to curtail conception in her body, while allowing eggs to be removed for invitro fertilization - tube tie? I think a real problem here is that we are also dealing with such a strange issue here that things start to feel counter intuitive - e.g. do you charge the doctor who fails to correctly carry out her birth limiting procedure with negligence causing death?

>3)- When ought newly conceived life be afforded protection from exploitation and death?

From the start.

I agree - it's just that there are still going to be certain (and uncertain) exceptions, just as there are exceptions in cases of protection from murder or manslaughter among adults, as an example.

I'm afraid you miss the point - you have to go back to my original post 239 to get the idea.

I read your post 239, and I think I see where you're comming from now. Allow me to generalize my answer to you:

First of all, biologically, life starts at conception for humans. Also, embryos are considered human, also due to biological factors (just humans at very early stages of life). From what I've read from you, I don't think you've dissagree with this (if you do, feel free to voice your dissagreement).

It’s just that I’m confused about one problem – the life has no potential to develop unless it is implanted into a uterus. I see that as putting a difficult twist upon the words ‘potential life’ – because a zygote is a potential life – but there is also no potential for this zygote if it cannot be implanted.

We have to determine what 'potential' we're talking about here, first. Are we talking about actual, biological life? I would have to say no, because the embryo-on-up is already considered alive (thus, it already has life). Now, if you think about it, the two statements "A human has human life from conception" (or your words It’s just that I can see that human life begins at conception..), and "A zygote is potential life" (or your words because a zygote is a potential life) are mutually exclusive. They contradict each other. Only one can be right. Unless, we're talking about two different 'life's here. If biological life starts at conception, then the zygote is active biological life, not potential life. However, if we're talking about a different 'life', such as a 'future life' for the unborn (as in, how the unborn could be able to live, and what kind of existance s/he would have), then you would be technically correct. The zygote is a potential 'life'. However, ethics falls upon the line of biological life..and not upon the somewhat philisophical aspects of one's awareness and observation of his/her existance. Simply put: The zygote has biological life, and that's what the ethics/morals should be based from. Besides that, even if we did allow for the existance form of 'life', ask yourself this: Is it better to end such existance, or to allow it, and allow the rights of the person's existance?

To conclude, consider this: The human starts to develop from the embryo on. The development is no longer considered potential, but rather active capability. Even before the human attaches to the womb, it is developing. If you don't allow it to attach to the womb (via an abortofectant, for example), then you are stopping the active development that's occuring in the human. In fact, let's take that to it's logical conclusion: If human is at stage S, and human was developing (or sustaining development, such as in adulthood) before stage S; if you block the human's ability to continue to sustain development, or the developed stage, then you're killing it. For example: If you choke someone (blocking their means of survival) so they can't sustain themselves (die), then you've killed them. In the same way, if you keep a person away from food (say, by chaining them up) until they can no longer sustain themselves (starve), then you've killed them. Again, in the same way, if you keep a human from it's life support (food, water, in whatever form it takes...and for the zygote, the form is the womb, for this is it's life support; this is it's means of survival), then you've killed it. Since the zygote is developing; keeping it away from the womb deliberately is killing it. Killing an innocent human (person) deliberately is murder. Therefore: To deliberately keep the zygote from attaching to the womb (using an abortofectant), is murder. If you know how an abortofectant works, you'd deliberately murdering the already growing and developing (just at an early stage of life) human. Therefore, I would have to say it's unethical for one to use abortofectants for this purpose.

I didn't mean to ramble on so much. However, I do hope this helps. If it doesn't, bug me again and I'll try to be more clear. :)

-The Hajman-